To mask or not to mask....That is the question. Part II

[jamil]

Jamil, I understand that people do not want to be inconvenienced so they grab on to any anti-science nonsense that comes along. It is human nature, confirmation bias. We have to acknowledge that.

I completely agree that admonishing others is a feckless gesture. Education should have been broader and comprehensive to overcome human inertia.

Let's hope we are coming out of this pandemic!

People aren't hurling experts at each other because they don't want to be inconvenienced. It's an issue of belief. It's people taking sides. Circling the wagons when attackers assault deeply held beliefs. But, calling them science deniers and hurling your own experts at them isn't helpful because they have their own experts. You just have more of them who are part of an establishment. Just that in itself biases many people against that point of view.

If you're qualified as a real ass expert who has some useful information to contribute, that's one thing. If there's something that your legal background can add to the conversation, all the better. But if you're just a person who is yourself following what the experts say that you believe, you're fighting a proxy war of knowledge. Average non-experts arguing science is like a game of Pokemon.

As it pertains to masks, I'm not a scientist who studies disease transmission. I'm only a lowly software engineer who is competent enough at logic to do that job. So that may be personally useful to me to figure out who is making a cogent argument. I also have a watch that measures my blood oxygen. Wearing masks do bring my blood O2 levels down a few points. Maybe you might try those experiments on yourself before you start hurling your experts at people.

Fauci is an expert. He admitted to lying for the greater good. Experts aren't infallible. They have agendas too.

 

[jamil]

The Stanford study was garbage, total and complete garbage that fit political agendas (again, this thread is in politics for a reason).

If anyone desires to follow garbage, I cannot stop them, but know what the inane fake studies about mask not being effective were done during the Spanish flu. The fake play at Stanford has been run before, then it fooled people who were predisposed to believe "them thar masks ain't working no how", and this is true today.

How do you know that what you're following isn't garbage if you're not an expert yourself. Aren't you following a side based on your belief too? The difference is that you're following the establishment experts. I'm not saying they're wrong and the others are right. But they're biased too. And they have agendas too. I'm not going to ignore an argument just because it's it's contrary to what the establishment experts say.

I think we all have to make our own decisions. Listen to the case for and against being made. Decide which makes most sense to us. My own conclusions from that process are that masks are at least a little effective. But they're not the key to ending the pandemic. It's retarded to blame the ongoing pandemic on people who don't want to wear masks. If there is a key, it's probably herd immunity. And hopefully the vaccine will be a part of achieving that.

 

[jamil]

You know, I'm not a climatologist but I am a scientist. I know enough to know that climate change inc. has never made a short or medium range hypothesis of testable accuracy and been right - not once. It is always excused by saying the next, 'more detailed' model will fix the problem but so far it never has

Then 400 ppm of C02 is thrown around as some point of devastation because that is the ppm when the earth was a lot warmer - but all that is is a pointless correlation. Far too many parameters are unknown and quite likely different between then and now for the comparison to be meaningful, and 'the earth is warming' is not any sort of prediction, either. It likely has been doing so since the last ice age. These people are not scientists regardless of what letters are after their name because they are not using the scientific method (hypothesize ==> predict ==> test ==> evaluate right/wrong ==> repeat). They are acolytes in the church of climate change

"I think only actual real ass scientists should get to say that someone is not following the science."

If you're a real ass scientist, okay then. You get to say it.

BTW, I just KNEW that someone would comment on the climate science aspect even though it was only an example that illustrated the point. And I was 87% sure it would be you.

 

[churchmouse]

People aren't hurling experts at each other because they don't want to be inconvenienced. It's an issue of belief. It's people taking sides. Circling the wagons when attackers assault deeply held beliefs. But, calling them science deniers and hurling your own experts at them isn't helpful because they have their own experts. You just have more of them who are part of an establishment. Just that in itself biases many people against that point of view.

If you're qualified as a real ass expert who has some useful information to contribute, that's one thing. If there's something that your legal background can add to the conversation, all the better. But if you're just a person who is yourself following what the experts say that you believe, you're fighting a proxy war of knowledge. Average non-experts arguing science is like a game of Pokemon.

As it pertains to masks, I'm not a scientist who studies disease transmission. I'm only a lowly software engineer who is competent enough at logic to do that job. So that may be personally useful to me to figure out who is making a cogent argument. I also have a watch that measures my blood oxygen. Wearing masks do bring my blood O2 levels down a few points. Maybe you might try those experiments on yourself before you start hurling your experts at people.

Fauci is an expert. He admitted to lying for the greater good. Experts aren't infallible. They have agendas too.

Fauci is a pawn. A puppet dancing to his masters will.

 

[jamil]

Fauci is a pawn. A puppet dancing to his masters will.

I dunno. He may be more of a player than that. I mean, if those stories published in what most people think to be reputable news sources, are true, that fauci was part of the gain of function studies, who knows what his involvement is.

 

[JettaKnight]

1. Calling this a "plague" and creating a an implied link to the plague of the mid 1300s is a subtle, and effective, method to try and give this pandemic more seriousness.

2. The seriousness of this illness is, itself, being questioned more and more.

3. How is it our responsibility to protect each other from "plagues"? If that were the case why were you not previously advocating for mask use during EVERY flu season? During the pandemics of the past? SARS, Bird Flu, Monkey Pox, West Nile, Swine Flu, etc., etc. ad nauseum. In all fairness, maybe you were. Were you? It is not anyone's responsibility,. It is the individual's responsibility to take additional measures if they are fearful.




Violating my rights is not the same as demanding I not get liquored up and drive through the Christmas Parade.

West Nile? Seriously? We all know that's spread through mosquitos

There's not a beach large enough for the heads that want to hide...


Now, tell me more about this lunch thing... I'm thinking tacos... or, maybe the local Irish pub for a pint.

 

[Ingomike]

I dunno. He may be more of a player than that. I mean, if those stories published in what most people think to be reputable news sources, are true, that fauci was part of the gain of function studies, who knows what his involvement is.

With as much certainty as one can have when most media agrees, it appears fauci was heavily involved in the research of the base virus, even after it was made off limits for US baden research he funded the Chinese research, and many reports indicate he has monetary motivations for what he is doing.

 

[jamil]

1. Calling this a "plague" and creating a an implied link to the plague of the mid 1300s is a subtle, and effective, method to try and give this pandemic more seriousness.

2. The seriousness of this illness is, itself, being questioned more and more.

3. How is it our responsibility to protect each other from "plagues"? If that were the case why were you not previously advocating for mask use during EVERY flu season? During the pandemics of the past? SARS, Bird Flu, Monkey Pox, West Nile, Swine Flu, etc., etc. ad nauseum. In all fairness, maybe you were. Were you? It is not anyone's responsibility,. It is the individual's responsibility to take additional measures if they are fearful.




Violating my rights is not the same as demanding I not get liquored up and drive through the Christmas Parade.

Are you saying that it's up to everyone to protect themselves and that no one has a personal responsibility to not engage in behaviors that would tend to infect someone? If so, how far are you willing to go with that? If you have aids, is it the person's responsibility you have sex with to protect herself? I mean, that's on the most extreme end I can think of, so I would imagine that this idea falls nowhere more extreme than that, and hopefully somewhere shy of that. I'm just trying to find the point where your idea reaches a limit, or if it has a limit.

I think a reasonable person would take reasonable steps not to cause harm to other people if it can be avoided. So, if you have the flu, maybe stay home and don't go out infecting other people, and if you have to go out, try not to do it in a way that would cause other people to be infected. That's also personal responsibility.

Maybe the same thing applies with Covid, I don't have a problem following social distancing guidelines, especially if I'm having symptoms. Does that mean we all must wear masks to fulfill that personal responsibility? That depends on how effective you think masks are.

If you REALLY believe that masks are the key to ending the pandemic, you'll probably think it's immoral for people not to wear them. If you don't think wearing masks is the key, you'll think it's immoral to require everyone to wear them.

 

[jamil]

With as much certainty as one can have when most media agrees, it appears fauci was heavily involved in the research of the base virus, even after it was made off limits for US baden research he funded the Chinese research, and many reports indicate he has monetary motivations for what he is doing.

If we had an honest media, they'd do their due diligence to find out and get to the bottom of all of it.

 

[J Galt]

West Nile? Seriously? We all know that's spread through mosquitos

There's not a beach large enough for the heads that want to hide...


Now, tell me more about this lunch thing... I'm thinking tacos... or, maybe the local Irish pub for a pint.

Cherry pick one example to try and discredit the whole. Also a subtle, but effective tactic to use.

 

[jamil]

Cherry pick one example to try and discredit the whole. Also a subtle, but effective tactic to use.

Eh, not so effective really. Everyone saw it.

 

[Ingomike]

And jamil describes perfectly the boy who cried wolf sceneiaro where they have way overblown this for political advantage and when a real plague comes no one will believe them...

 

[jbombelli]

Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets.

 

[J Galt]

Are you saying that it's up to everyone to protect themselves and that no one has a personal responsibility to not engage in behaviors that would tend to infect someone? If so, how far are you willing to go with that? If you have aids, is it the person's responsibility you have sex with to protect herself? I mean, that's on the most extreme end I can think of, so I would imagine that this idea falls nowhere more extreme than that, and hopefully somewhere shy of that. I'm just trying to find the point where your idea reaches a limit, or if it has a limit.

I think a reasonable person would take reasonable steps not to cause harm to other people if it can be avoided. So, if you have the flu, maybe stay home and don't go out infecting other people, and if you have to go out, try not to do it in a way that would cause other people to be infected.

Maybe the same thing applies with Covid, I don't have a problem following social distancing guidelines, especially if I'm having symptoms. Does that mean we all must wear masks to fulfill that personal responsibility? That depends on how effective you think masks are.

If you REALLY believe that masks are the key to ending the pandemic, you'll probably think it's immoral for people not to wear them. If you don't think wearing masks is the key, you'll think it's immoral to require everyone to wear them.

When someone makes multiple points (shotgun approach) then asks that you reply, it becomes difficult to stay on topic.....because there are so many other topics that get introduced.

I'll go with the part you quoted in red: It is the individual's responsibility to take additional measures if they are fearful. This was stated specifically in the context of fear of the current pandemic. If you are fearful of this corona virus, wear a mask. Wear 2 masks. Wear 2 masks and goggles. Etc.

As far as the question of how far to take it? I'm not taking it anywhere. Again, it was made specifically in the context of this corona panic.

Taking an opposing opinion then attributing an extreme example to that person (. . . If you have aids, is it the person's responsibility you have sex with to protect herself? I mean, that's on the most extreme end I can think of, . . . ) is an effective way to try and discredit that opposing opinion.......unless you're called out on it.

The next point you seem to raise is "reasonable". While it seems like "common sense" it is an ambiguous and poorly defined concept......much like "common sense". However, people like to throw around the word "reasonable". Probably partially because it is appealing and seem to be introducing a voice of reason, thereby allowing the person to try and gain some credibility. Much like the introduction of reasonable gun laws that are common sense.

Then you bring up masks. Again, using 2 extremes to try and poke holes in an opinion that differs from your own. "If you REALLY believe that masks are the key to ending the pandemic, you'll probably think it's immoral for people not to wear them. If you don't think wearing masks is the key, you'll think it's immoral to require everyone to wear them."

I did not express any opinion on masks. I asked if Kirk (or anyone else) was advocating for mask use during the other pandemics. Yet here you try and attribute an extreme stance to me (insinuating that I either do or do not believe in mask use) that is not accurate to try and discredit a differing opinion.

It is significantly easier to discredit an extreme viewpoint. That is probably why a common tactic is to (incorrectly) ascribe an extreme version of someone's opinion to them.

It would probably be more productive to actually listen to a different opinion, then discuss the actual points raised. But that would take significantly more work than just to change the story and argue that.

 

[buckwacker]

And jamil describes perfectly the boy who cried wolf sceneiaro where they have way overblown this for political advantage and when a real plague comes no one will believe them...

Well maybe that's the plan, global overpopulation and all.

 

[JettaKnight]

Eh, not so effective really. Everyone saw it.

I mean, it's the best I can do pre-coffee. Besides, it Friday.

The other ones mentioned were no where near as bad as COVID-19, so why would drastic measures be warranted?

 

[J Galt]

Apologies to everyone for the long post. I've had too much Rockstar this morning.

Also, I'm sorry if anything posted sounded like an attack, or overly harsh. It was not intended that way.

[Of course then I attach the 2 pics below.]

 

[SwikLS]

 

[chipbennett]

You know, I'm not a climatologist but I am a scientist. I know enough to know that climate change inc. has never made a short or medium range hypothesis of testable accuracy and been right - not once. It is always excused by saying the next, 'more detailed' model will fix the problem but so far it never has

Then 400 ppm of C02 is thrown around as some point of devastation because that is the ppm when the earth was a lot warmer - but all that is is a pointless correlation. Far too many parameters are unknown and quite likely different between then and now for the comparison to be meaningful, and 'the earth is warming' is not any sort of prediction, either. It likely has been doing so since the last ice age. These people are not scientists regardless of what letters are after their name because they are not using the scientific method (hypothesize ==> predict ==> test ==> evaluate right/wrong ==> repeat). They are acolytes in the church of climate change

Exactly. atmospheric CO2 is a lagging, not a leading, indicator of atmospheric temperature. It's kind of like obesity and metabolic syndrome: obesity is a lagging indicator of hormonal disregulation, rather than a leading indicator of other diseases of hormonal disregulation (diabetes, heart disease, etc.).

The outcomes in both cases are following similarly disconnected trajectories.

 

[chipbennett]

As I have pointed out before, the argument of the anti-masker position is based on feelings, politics and fraud.

Did So-Called ‘Stanford, NIH Study’ Really Show Face Masks Are Ineffective Against Covid-19?

Some on social media are claiming that a “Stanford” or “NIH” study has shown that face masks are ineffective and even harmful. Stanford Medicine has emphasized that this was not a "Stanford study."

www.forbes.com

Proving that particular study to be fraudulent does not support your general claim.

Good try, though.